Category Archives: Media

UPDATED: John Maynard Keynes: Where’s The Genius? (Part 1)

Capitalism, Celebrity, Classical Liberalism, Communism, Debt, Economy, History, Inflation, Intellectualism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Media

“John Maynard Keynes: Where’s The Genius?! (Part 1)” is the first part of my conversation with Benn Steil. Dr. Steil is senior fellow and director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. His latest book is “The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order”:

1) ILANA MERCER: Congratulations on a beautifully written book, so carefully researched, with both archival and secondary material. Followers of the Austrian School of economics, as I believe we both are, have a reflexive disdain for John Maynard Keynes. Nevertheless, the portrait you drew of him was powerful and persuasive. For example, it is easy to sympathize with Keynes’ frustration with the American mind—so prosaic and anti-intellectual—during the critical Bretton-Woods negotiations. There is much to admire too about Keynes’ “unrelenting nationalism.” I had never before thought of Keynes as an English patriot, first. You, a Hayekian thinker, managed to humanize J. M. Keynes. How did that happen?

BENN STEIL: Thanks Ilana. I’m a great admirer of Hayek’s writing, as you know, but I’ve never been one to wear the Austrian (or any other) label. More importantly, “The Battle of Bretton Woods” is in large measure a parallel biography of Keynes and Harry Dexter White, and no biographer succeeds in engaging readers of any stripe without empathy towards his subjects. In the case of Keynes, I may not sympathize with his economics in the way that his greatest biographer, Robert Skidelsky, does, but I found it not in the least bit difficult to admire him as a gifted public intellectual and to warm to him as a human being, with all his obvious flaws and foibles. One aspect of Keynes that I tried to bring out is how fundamental his English upbringing and nationalism were to shaping both his economic and political thinking. He was a defective diplomat, no doubt, but he took to the role with ease and enthusiasm.

2) MERCER: My mistake. You were awarded the 2010 Hayek Book Prize, so I presumed you favored Austrian economics. But back to Keynes. As you reveal, he “never bothered with a [doctorate]; he hadn’t even a degree in economics,” and “he formally studied economics for a brief period” only. (page 61) His election to “a life fellowship at Kings College, Cambridge, at twenty-six” seemed to rely on familial membership in Britain’s intellectual peerage. Yet, as you contend, he amalgamated the qualities of “mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher” “with a genius that no economist has ever matched.” (page 62) Guide the perplexed, please.

STEIL: It’s important to understand that in Keynes’s day, …”

Read the rest of the conversation, “John Maynard Keynes: Where’s The Genius?! (Part 1),” on WND. Stay tuned for the conclusion, next week, of the Steil-Mercer conversation about Keynes.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

On my Facebook page.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

UPDATE (8/15): I forewarned Benn Steil, who is the nicest gentleman—and, unlike J. M. Keynes, a jolly good sport—that our readers are hard-core. If only these readers used respectful language, but there is nothing I can do about the conduct of others.

It has to be obvious from my questions to Dr. Steil (part 2 is still to come) that I have the utmost respect for his scholarship and that I enjoyed what was an impressively researched, beautifully written book. I am not one of those tinny ideologues who’d rather miss out on an important intellectual contribution just because it doesn’t comport 100% with my philosophy. I’m too curious for that.

Benn Steil and I began communicating when I penned an irate blog about a negative review of his book in The Times Literary Supplement.

‘When People With Guns Meet You At The Airport’

Homeland Security, Intelligence, Journalism, Literature, Media, Technology, Terrorism, The State, Uncategorized

The New York Times is playing catch-up. It is running an in-depth feature about Laura Poitras, the heroic woman who “helped snowden spill his secrets.” The article is by investigative reporter Peter Maass, who has done work for the NYT, but is not a insider. A subplot in the Snowden case, of course, is how corrupt US media was usurped and sidelined by necessity.

Here’s an excerpted from “How Laura Poitras Helped Snowden Spill His Secrets”:

This past January, Laura Poitras received a curious e-mail from an anonymous stranger requesting her public encryption key. For almost two years, Poitras had been working on a documentary about surveillance, and she occasionally received queries from strangers. She replied to this one and sent her public key — allowing him or her to send an encrypted e-mail that only Poitras could open, with her private key — but she didn’t think much would come of it.

The stranger responded with instructions for creating an even more secure system to protect their exchanges. Promising sensitive information, the stranger told Poitras to select long pass phrases that could withstand a brute-force attack by networked computers. “Assume that your adversary is capable of a trillion guesses per second,” the stranger wrote.

Before long, Poitras received an encrypted message that outlined a number of secret surveillance programs run by the government. She had heard of one of them but not the others. After describing each program, the stranger wrote some version of the phrase, “This I can prove.”

Seconds after she decrypted and read the e-mail, Poitras disconnected from the Internet and removed the message from her computer. “I thought, O.K., if this is true, my life just changed,” she told me last month. “It was staggering, what he claimed to know and be able to provide. I just knew that I had to change everything.”

Poitras remained wary of whoever it was she was communicating with. She worried especially that a government agent might be trying to trick her into disclosing information about the people she interviewed for her documentary, including Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks. “I called him out,” Poitras recalled. “I said either you have this information and you are taking huge risks or you are trying to entrap me and the people I know, or you’re crazy.”

The answers were reassuring but not definitive. Poitras did not know the stranger’s name, sex, age or employer (C.I.A.? N.S.A.? Pentagon?). In early June, she finally got the answers. Along with her reporting partner, Glenn Greenwald, a former lawyer and a columnist for The Guardian, Poitras flew to Hong Kong and met the N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, who gave them thousands of classified documents, setting off a major controversy over the extent and legality of government surveillance. Poitras was right that, among other things, her life would never be the same.

Greenwald lives and works in a house surrounded by tropical foliage in a remote area of Rio de Janeiro. He shares the home with his Brazilian partner and their 10 dogs and one cat, and the place has the feel of a low-key fraternity that has been dropped down in the jungle. The kitchen clock is off by hours, but no one notices; dishes tend to pile up in the sink; the living room contains a table and a couch and a large TV, an Xbox console and a box of poker chips and not much else. The refrigerator is not always filled with fresh vegetables. A family of monkeys occasionally raids the banana trees in the backyard and engages in shrieking battles with the dogs.

Greenwald does most of his work on a shaded porch, usually dressed in a T-shirt, surfer shorts and flip-flops. Over the four days I spent there, he was in perpetual motion, speaking on the phone in Portuguese and English, rushing out the door to be interviewed in the city below, answering calls and e-mails from people seeking information about Snowden, tweeting to his 225,000 followers (and conducting intense arguments with a number of them), then sitting down to write more N.S.A. articles for The Guardian, all while pleading with his dogs to stay quiet. During one especially fever-pitched moment, he hollered, “Shut up, everyone,” but they didn’t seem to care.

Amid the chaos, Poitras, an intense-looking woman of 49, sat in a spare bedroom or at the table in the living room, working in concentrated silence in front of her multiple computers. Once in a while she would walk over to the porch to talk with Greenwald about the article he was working on, or he would sometimes stop what he was doing to look at the latest version of a new video she was editing about Snowden. They would talk intensely — Greenwald far louder and more rapid-fire than Poitras — and occasionally break out laughing at some shared joke or absurd memory. The Snowden story, they both said, was a battle they were waging together, a fight against powers of surveillance that they both believe are a threat to fundamental American liberties.

READ ON.

Who’s Killing Whom? Speak Up, Bill O’Reilly!

Crime, Journalism, Justice, Media, Race, Racism

“Who’s Killing Whom? Speak Up, Bill O’Reilly!” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

“Beggars can’t be choosers. Those who’ve never hesitated to tell the truth about the hue of hatred in America are elated. Someone more powerful has stepped up to help do the work so few will do.

In 2010, Bill O’Reilly became the first member of mainstream media to briefly broach a taboo topic: the color of crime in the US. In his July 13th ‘Talking Points’ memo, the famous talker alluded to rates at which blacks commit violent crime proportionate to their numbers in society.

Then as now, Mr. O’Reilly came straight out and said this:

‘African-Americans make up 13 percent of the population, but according to the Justice Department, they comprise 39 percent of violent crime convictions. Thirty-six percent of all murders in America are committed by African-Americans, and 90 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks.’

The Bureau of Justice’s statisticians confirm the long-standing trends to which Mr. O’Reilly alluded. The report, ‘Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008,’ states: ‘Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders,’ and were eight times more likely to murder than whites.

Everyone is, however, tripping over one another to show-off their admiration for Bill O’Reilly. That’s premature.

So elated are the truth-tellers that some have even missed that Bill and the blond brigade of Fox News—in the person of Kirsten Powers and others—are beating on breast about ‘intraracial’ crime-patterns only. Or black-on-black crime. In so doing, these comfort-zone commentators deflect from the white-hot issue of black-on-white violence.

You see, blacks are also more likely to murder whites than the reverse. This likelihood is a trend which O’Reilly and the gang are submerging by emphasizing only the ‘intraracial’ nature of most murders. …”

The complete column is “Who’s Killing Whom? Speak Up, Bill O’Reilly!” Read it on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

On my Facebook page.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

Conflict of Interest And Media Corruption

Democrats, Elections, Ethics, Journalism, Media, Morality, Republicans

Conflict of interest equals corruption. It is the modus operandi of major media in America. It is why affiliates of large news organizations see nothing outrageous about producing documentaries and miniseries about Hillary Clinton in the ramp up to the 2016 elections.

What can Republican candidates expect from the media mafiosi in the 2016 Republican primary debates? If past is prologue, Republican candidates will be “deposed” by the Democratic operatives of CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc. That’s how Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus put it. So one wonders what took GOP invertebrates so long to stand up to the farce of Democratic special interests (most media) moderating or sponsoring the Republican election debates.

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus said NBC and CNN must halt their Hillary Clinton programming or the RNC won’t partner with them for the 2016 Republican primary debates.

(LINK)

NBC Entertainment has announced plans to produce a mini-series about Hillary Clinton starring Diane Lane, while CNN has announced plans to produce a feature-length documentary about Clinton that will air in theaters and on the network. Both networks have stressed that their news divisions will have no part in the projects.

(LINK)

Even though this is neither here nor there for liberty, many of us still wanted to see Mitt Romeny get off his knees and quit apologizing to his media inquisitors, who kept berating him for the Good Life he had led.